With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

Let me start by saying Al, I agree with you about the start of the game. I was dumbfounded when we came out and went pass, pass, pass. Our OL is big and physical, and they play better when they get to start out beating up on DLs, it helps them build confidence. I was flabergasted when the first actual run was done by Michael Bush. We need to come out and set a physical tone, every week, not just against GB.

That said, I completely disagree w/ pretty much everything else you have said. It doesn't really matter who has the ball first, I could just as easily say that by taking the ball you are telling your defense you don't believe they can stop GBs O. See, it really makes no difference somebody can say it was a bad decision for the same reason either way. Everybody wants an HC who is an x's and o's guy, well Lovie is a great defensive x's and o's guy. There is only 1 Bill Belichick in the NFL, he's the only HC that could coordinate either side of the football if necessary. Everywhere else the HC concentrates their energy on their expertise. That's why it's important to have coordinators that the HC trusts so that he can leave the gameplan up to the coordinators and just tweak it here or there as he sees fit. Obviously Tice saw something on tape that led him to believe that he could attack through the air. Something you need to keep in mind was that GB showed us a look that they had NEVER, and I mean NEVER put on tape before in a 2 deep S zone. The fact is that adjustments were made and WRs got open, Jay was just zeroed in on Brandon and didn't really look for the other guys. We saw Jay come off Brandon this week and him and Alshon both had pretty good days._________________2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

Let me start by saying Al, I agree with you about the start of the game. I was dumbfounded when we came out and went pass, pass, pass. Our OL is big and physical, and they play better when they get to start out beating up on DLs, it helps them build confidence. I was flabergasted when the first actual run was done by Michael Bush. We need to come out and set a physical tone, every week, not just against GB.

That said, I completely disagree w/ pretty much everything else you have said. It doesn't really matter who has the ball first, I could just as easily say that by taking the ball you are telling your defense you don't believe they can stop GBs O. See, it really makes no difference somebody can say it was a bad decision for the same reason either way. Everybody wants an HC who is an x's and o's guy, well Lovie is a great defensive x's and o's guy. There is only 1 Bill Belichick in the NFL, he's the only HC that could coordinate either side of the football if necessary. Everywhere else the HC concentrates their energy on their expertise. That's why it's important to have coordinators that the HC trusts so that he can leave the gameplan up to the coordinators and just tweak it here or there as he sees fit. Obviously Tice saw something on tape that led him to believe that he could attack through the air. Something you need to keep in mind was that GB showed us a look that they had NEVER, and I mean NEVER put on tape before in a 2 deep S zone. The fact is that adjustments were made and WRs got open, Jay was just zeroed in on Brandon and didn't really look for the other guys. We saw Jay come off Brandon this week and him and Alshon both had pretty good days.

The vast majority of the time teams take the ball so it is not the same situation and does not tell the defense anything because that is the standard decision.

Only if there is a tactical reason to kick off should a team do it: weather, opponent has a miserable offense, new qb, etc. There was NONE of this in this case. It was a bad idea in the NFC Championship game and a bad idea Thursday. It is almost NEVER a good idea to let Rodgers have the ball first. Unless he is crippled what possible good can come of it? Unless you have the 85-6 defense you simply cannot do this against him.

Even if you stop GB you still are going to get a 50+ yd punt which puts you deep in your own territory. Did they forget that little gem? This is what actually happened.

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

An offence that put up 41 points the week before doesn’t need a confidence boost…not only that but it’s utter rubbish IMO to think that giving Rodgers the ball first is a poor decision when you consider their offence hasn’t set the world on fire this season…especially if you know how well your D is playing.

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

Let me start by saying Al, I agree with you about the start of the game. I was dumbfounded when we came out and went pass, pass, pass. Our OL is big and physical, and they play better when they get to start out beating up on DLs, it helps them build confidence. I was flabergasted when the first actual run was done by Michael Bush. We need to come out and set a physical tone, every week, not just against GB.

That said, I completely disagree w/ pretty much everything else you have said. It doesn't really matter who has the ball first, I could just as easily say that by taking the ball you are telling your defense you don't believe they can stop GBs O. See, it really makes no difference somebody can say it was a bad decision for the same reason either way. Everybody wants an HC who is an x's and o's guy, well Lovie is a great defensive x's and o's guy. There is only 1 Bill Belichick in the NFL, he's the only HC that could coordinate either side of the football if necessary. Everywhere else the HC concentrates their energy on their expertise. That's why it's important to have coordinators that the HC trusts so that he can leave the gameplan up to the coordinators and just tweak it here or there as he sees fit. Obviously Tice saw something on tape that led him to believe that he could attack through the air. Something you need to keep in mind was that GB showed us a look that they had NEVER, and I mean NEVER put on tape before in a 2 deep S zone. The fact is that adjustments were made and WRs got open, Jay was just zeroed in on Brandon and didn't really look for the other guys. We saw Jay come off Brandon this week and him and Alshon both had pretty good days.

The vast majority of the time teams take the ball so it is not the same situation and does not tell the defense anything because that is the standard decision.

Only if there is a tactical reason to kick off should a team do it: weather, opponent has a miserable offense, new qb, etc. There was NONE of this in this case. It was a bad idea in the NFC Championship game and a bad idea Thursday. It is almost NEVER a good idea to let Rodgers have the ball first. Unless he is crippled what possible good can come of it? Unless you have the 85-6 defense you simply cannot do this against him.

Even if you stop GB you still are going to get a 50+ yd punt which puts you deep in your own territory. Did they forget that little gem? This is what actually happened.

Actually Al, the vast majority of HCs in the NFL defer to the 2nd half. The reason for that is b/c you are wanting to hold the ball last at the end of the half and come out w/ the ball immediately after the half, a chance to really turn the tide in a game. A few HCs who have very explosive offenses and suspect defenses prefer to receive the ball b/c they want to come out and put their offense up immediately.

Either way, neither has a bearing on the outcome of a game. There really isn't a whole lot of strategy to the coin toss. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. The only time the coin toss matters is overtime, that's it._________________2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

An offence that put up 41 points the week before doesn’t need a confidence boost…not only that but it’s utter rubbish IMO to think that giving Rodgers the ball first is a poor decision when you consider their offence hasn’t set the world on fire this season…especially if you know how well your D is playing.

The first game deluded me as well as the coaches and the fact that we scored 41 is just a further indication that we should have taken the ball. Did some Brainiac think we were going to take the ball away from Rodgers?

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

Let me start by saying Al, I agree with you about the start of the game. I was dumbfounded when we came out and went pass, pass, pass. Our OL is big and physical, and they play better when they get to start out beating up on DLs, it helps them build confidence. I was flabergasted when the first actual run was done by Michael Bush. We need to come out and set a physical tone, every week, not just against GB.

That said, I completely disagree w/ pretty much everything else you have said. It doesn't really matter who has the ball first, I could just as easily say that by taking the ball you are telling your defense you don't believe they can stop GBs O. See, it really makes no difference somebody can say it was a bad decision for the same reason either way. Everybody wants an HC who is an x's and o's guy, well Lovie is a great defensive x's and o's guy. There is only 1 Bill Belichick in the NFL, he's the only HC that could coordinate either side of the football if necessary. Everywhere else the HC concentrates their energy on their expertise. That's why it's important to have coordinators that the HC trusts so that he can leave the gameplan up to the coordinators and just tweak it here or there as he sees fit. Obviously Tice saw something on tape that led him to believe that he could attack through the air. Something you need to keep in mind was that GB showed us a look that they had NEVER, and I mean NEVER put on tape before in a 2 deep S zone. The fact is that adjustments were made and WRs got open, Jay was just zeroed in on Brandon and didn't really look for the other guys. We saw Jay come off Brandon this week and him and Alshon both had pretty good days.

The vast majority of the time teams take the ball so it is not the same situation and does not tell the defense anything because that is the standard decision.

Only if there is a tactical reason to kick off should a team do it: weather, opponent has a miserable offense, new qb, etc. There was NONE of this in this case. It was a bad idea in the NFC Championship game and a bad idea Thursday. It is almost NEVER a good idea to let Rodgers have the ball first. Unless he is crippled what possible good can come of it? Unless you have the 85-6 defense you simply cannot do this against him.

Even if you stop GB you still are going to get a 50+ yd punt which puts you deep in your own territory. Did they forget that little gem? This is what actually happened.

Actually Al, the vast majority of HCs in the NFL defer to the 2nd half. The reason for that is b/c you are wanting to hold the ball last at the end of the half and come out w/ the ball immediately after the half, a chance to really turn the tide in a game. A few HCs who have very explosive offenses and suspect defenses prefer to receive the ball b/c they want to come out and put their offense up immediately.

Either way, neither has a bearing on the outcome of a game. There really isn't a whole lot of strategy to the coin toss. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. The only time the coin toss matters is overtime, that's it.

If you don't care that you have to come from behind then it doesn't matter. If you have an offense that can come from behind then it doesn't matter. We don't do well at either so it does matter. When the Bears start out with the lead they win far easier than when they start out behind.

Giving up the ball in no way assures you will have the ball at the end of the half in any case and most coaches do not defer as a matter of routine. That is an exception.

The first game deluded me as well as the coaches and the fact that we scored 41 is just a further indication that we should have taken the ball. Did some Brainiac think we were going to take the ball away from Rodgers?

Well yes…and we did…Rodgers isn’t some superhuman who is unbeatable…he is just a QB…a great QB sure but we have played better and beaten them too…the Packers only scored 16 points against us on offence…had our offence been even competent we would have been well in the game…the Packers aren't the juggernaut that you seem to think they are…as their other two games this season has proven.

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

Let me start by saying Al, I agree with you about the start of the game. I was dumbfounded when we came out and went pass, pass, pass. Our OL is big and physical, and they play better when they get to start out beating up on DLs, it helps them build confidence. I was flabergasted when the first actual run was done by Michael Bush. We need to come out and set a physical tone, every week, not just against GB.

That said, I completely disagree w/ pretty much everything else you have said. It doesn't really matter who has the ball first, I could just as easily say that by taking the ball you are telling your defense you don't believe they can stop GBs O. See, it really makes no difference somebody can say it was a bad decision for the same reason either way. Everybody wants an HC who is an x's and o's guy, well Lovie is a great defensive x's and o's guy. There is only 1 Bill Belichick in the NFL, he's the only HC that could coordinate either side of the football if necessary. Everywhere else the HC concentrates their energy on their expertise. That's why it's important to have coordinators that the HC trusts so that he can leave the gameplan up to the coordinators and just tweak it here or there as he sees fit. Obviously Tice saw something on tape that led him to believe that he could attack through the air. Something you need to keep in mind was that GB showed us a look that they had NEVER, and I mean NEVER put on tape before in a 2 deep S zone. The fact is that adjustments were made and WRs got open, Jay was just zeroed in on Brandon and didn't really look for the other guys. We saw Jay come off Brandon this week and him and Alshon both had pretty good days.

The vast majority of the time teams take the ball so it is not the same situation and does not tell the defense anything because that is the standard decision.

Only if there is a tactical reason to kick off should a team do it: weather, opponent has a miserable offense, new qb, etc. There was NONE of this in this case. It was a bad idea in the NFC Championship game and a bad idea Thursday. It is almost NEVER a good idea to let Rodgers have the ball first. Unless he is crippled what possible good can come of it? Unless you have the 85-6 defense you simply cannot do this against him.

Even if you stop GB you still are going to get a 50+ yd punt which puts you deep in your own territory. Did they forget that little gem? This is what actually happened.

Actually Al, the vast majority of HCs in the NFL defer to the 2nd half. The reason for that is b/c you are wanting to hold the ball last at the end of the half and come out w/ the ball immediately after the half, a chance to really turn the tide in a game. A few HCs who have very explosive offenses and suspect defenses prefer to receive the ball b/c they want to come out and put their offense up immediately.

Either way, neither has a bearing on the outcome of a game. There really isn't a whole lot of strategy to the coin toss. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. The only time the coin toss matters is overtime, that's it.

If you don't care that you have to come from behind then it doesn't matter. If you have an offense that can come from behind then it doesn't matter. We don't do well at either so it does matter. When the Bears start out with the lead they win far easier than when they start out behind.

Giving up the ball in no way assures you will have the ball at the end of the half in any case and most coaches do not defer as a matter of routine. That is an exception.

Again you are operating under this assumption the other team is going to score, the Bears don't. They operate under the assumption that either the D is going to score or they are going to get a 3 and out. Not only that but the Bears rarely score first in a game, yet they win about 2/3 of the time, so there's another nice falsity from you. And yes coaches routinely defer, believe it or not coaches are creatures of habit, they will repeat the same routine over and over again, especially if you are talking about something as trivial as the coin toss._________________2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery

The first game deluded me as well as the coaches and the fact that we scored 41 is just a further indication that we should have taken the ball. Did some Brainiac think we were going to take the ball away from Rodgers?

Well yes…and we did…Rodgers isn’t some superhuman who is unbeatable…he is just a QB…a great QB sure but we have played better and beaten them too…the Packers only scored 16 points against us on offence…had our offence been even competent we would have been well in the game…the Packers aren't the juggernaut that you seem to think they are…as their other two games this season has proven.

We did not "take" the ball from Rodgers. You know I was speaking of a turnover not just stopping him. Even if we stopped him it did little good since their punter is so good there was no point to giving him the ball. It did NOTHING for us. And it will NEVER do anything unless there is a turnover.

Rodgers is as close to superhuman as it gets. It is EXTREMELY dangerous to allow him to get the ball first. The NFC Championship game showed how stupid it is to give him the ball first. We were down 14-0 after the first two series and the game was over.

GB is not at their best as of yet and getting robbed in Seattle is not going to help their opponents.

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

Let me start by saying Al, I agree with you about the start of the game. I was dumbfounded when we came out and went pass, pass, pass. Our OL is big and physical, and they play better when they get to start out beating up on DLs, it helps them build confidence. I was flabergasted when the first actual run was done by Michael Bush. We need to come out and set a physical tone, every week, not just against GB.

That said, I completely disagree w/ pretty much everything else you have said. It doesn't really matter who has the ball first, I could just as easily say that by taking the ball you are telling your defense you don't believe they can stop GBs O. See, it really makes no difference somebody can say it was a bad decision for the same reason either way. Everybody wants an HC who is an x's and o's guy, well Lovie is a great defensive x's and o's guy. There is only 1 Bill Belichick in the NFL, he's the only HC that could coordinate either side of the football if necessary. Everywhere else the HC concentrates their energy on their expertise. That's why it's important to have coordinators that the HC trusts so that he can leave the gameplan up to the coordinators and just tweak it here or there as he sees fit. Obviously Tice saw something on tape that led him to believe that he could attack through the air. Something you need to keep in mind was that GB showed us a look that they had NEVER, and I mean NEVER put on tape before in a 2 deep S zone. The fact is that adjustments were made and WRs got open, Jay was just zeroed in on Brandon and didn't really look for the other guys. We saw Jay come off Brandon this week and him and Alshon both had pretty good days.

The vast majority of the time teams take the ball so it is not the same situation and does not tell the defense anything because that is the standard decision.

Only if there is a tactical reason to kick off should a team do it: weather, opponent has a miserable offense, new qb, etc. There was NONE of this in this case. It was a bad idea in the NFC Championship game and a bad idea Thursday. It is almost NEVER a good idea to let Rodgers have the ball first. Unless he is crippled what possible good can come of it? Unless you have the 85-6 defense you simply cannot do this against him.

Even if you stop GB you still are going to get a 50+ yd punt which puts you deep in your own territory. Did they forget that little gem? This is what actually happened.

Actually Al, the vast majority of HCs in the NFL defer to the 2nd half. The reason for that is b/c you are wanting to hold the ball last at the end of the half and come out w/ the ball immediately after the half, a chance to really turn the tide in a game. A few HCs who have very explosive offenses and suspect defenses prefer to receive the ball b/c they want to come out and put their offense up immediately.

Either way, neither has a bearing on the outcome of a game. There really isn't a whole lot of strategy to the coin toss. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. The only time the coin toss matters is overtime, that's it.

If you don't care that you have to come from behind then it doesn't matter. If you have an offense that can come from behind then it doesn't matter. We don't do well at either so it does matter. When the Bears start out with the lead they win far easier than when they start out behind.

Giving up the ball in no way assures you will have the ball at the end of the half in any case and most coaches do not defer as a matter of routine. That is an exception.

Again you are operating under this assumption the other team is going to score, the Bears don't. They operate under the assumption that either the D is going to score or they are going to get a 3 and out. Not only that but the Bears rarely score first in a game, yet they win about 2/3 of the time, so there's another nice falsity from you. And yes coaches routinely defer, believe it or not coaches are creatures of habit, they will repeat the same routine over and over again, especially if you are talking about something as trivial as the coin toss.

Maybe 1 out of 10 time a coach defers. How many deferred Sunday? Any?

My "falsehood" is anything but, Smith's record is 76-61 which, for those of you in Rio Linda, is .554 NOT 2/3s. Most of our victories came after we took an initial lead.

Smith has had three pretty good seasons as our head coach while the other five SUCKED. Outside the 13-3 year his record is extremely mediocre.

With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves.

We had a terrible game plan.

You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly.

Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.

Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.

The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.

It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing… No you are not understanding what I am saying. IF the first game plan was good Cutler would not have made it better by audibling. IF the second game plan was good it should have worked even without Cutler audibling. I was just noting that his lack of audibling indicated to me a lack of awareness on his part. It had nothing to do with the game plan.

Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one… I never said that it was, merely reflected on the implications towards both game plans. I don't know that the first was any good either.

And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.

I repeat "I don't care if he did nothing this time" you NEVER give Rodgers the ball first unless he is crippled. This tells the offense you have no confidence in them. Now it turns out that this was completely justified but you cannot admit it up front.

By not running first we crippled the passing attack and put ourselves behind the Eight Ball so that neither would work. I don't advocate neglecting the pass but you have to set it up. And there are MANY games every week in which the winning team runs more than it passes.

Sunday showed the game plan that should have been used against GB. It wasn't a brilliant insight.

Let me start by saying Al, I agree with you about the start of the game. I was dumbfounded when we came out and went pass, pass, pass. Our OL is big and physical, and they play better when they get to start out beating up on DLs, it helps them build confidence. I was flabergasted when the first actual run was done by Michael Bush. We need to come out and set a physical tone, every week, not just against GB.

That said, I completely disagree w/ pretty much everything else you have said. It doesn't really matter who has the ball first, I could just as easily say that by taking the ball you are telling your defense you don't believe they can stop GBs O. See, it really makes no difference somebody can say it was a bad decision for the same reason either way. Everybody wants an HC who is an x's and o's guy, well Lovie is a great defensive x's and o's guy. There is only 1 Bill Belichick in the NFL, he's the only HC that could coordinate either side of the football if necessary. Everywhere else the HC concentrates their energy on their expertise. That's why it's important to have coordinators that the HC trusts so that he can leave the gameplan up to the coordinators and just tweak it here or there as he sees fit. Obviously Tice saw something on tape that led him to believe that he could attack through the air. Something you need to keep in mind was that GB showed us a look that they had NEVER, and I mean NEVER put on tape before in a 2 deep S zone. The fact is that adjustments were made and WRs got open, Jay was just zeroed in on Brandon and didn't really look for the other guys. We saw Jay come off Brandon this week and him and Alshon both had pretty good days.

The vast majority of the time teams take the ball so it is not the same situation and does not tell the defense anything because that is the standard decision.

Only if there is a tactical reason to kick off should a team do it: weather, opponent has a miserable offense, new qb, etc. There was NONE of this in this case. It was a bad idea in the NFC Championship game and a bad idea Thursday. It is almost NEVER a good idea to let Rodgers have the ball first. Unless he is crippled what possible good can come of it? Unless you have the 85-6 defense you simply cannot do this against him.

Even if you stop GB you still are going to get a 50+ yd punt which puts you deep in your own territory. Did they forget that little gem? This is what actually happened.

Actually Al, the vast majority of HCs in the NFL defer to the 2nd half. The reason for that is b/c you are wanting to hold the ball last at the end of the half and come out w/ the ball immediately after the half, a chance to really turn the tide in a game. A few HCs who have very explosive offenses and suspect defenses prefer to receive the ball b/c they want to come out and put their offense up immediately.

Either way, neither has a bearing on the outcome of a game. There really isn't a whole lot of strategy to the coin toss. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. The only time the coin toss matters is overtime, that's it.

If you don't care that you have to come from behind then it doesn't matter. If you have an offense that can come from behind then it doesn't matter. We don't do well at either so it does matter. When the Bears start out with the lead they win far easier than when they start out behind.

Giving up the ball in no way assures you will have the ball at the end of the half in any case and most coaches do not defer as a matter of routine. That is an exception.

Again you are operating under this assumption the other team is going to score, the Bears don't. They operate under the assumption that either the D is going to score or they are going to get a 3 and out. Not only that but the Bears rarely score first in a game, yet they win about 2/3 of the time, so there's another nice falsity from you. And yes coaches routinely defer, believe it or not coaches are creatures of habit, they will repeat the same routine over and over again, especially if you are talking about something as trivial as the coin toss.

Maybe 1 out of 10 time a coach defers. How many deferred Sunday? Any?

My "falsehood" is anything but, Smith's record is 76-61 which, for those of you in Rio Linda, is .554 NOT 2/3s. Most of our victories came after we took an initial lead.

Smith has had three pretty good seasons as our head coach while the other five SUCKED. Outside the 13-3 year his record is extremely mediocre.

Well since you want to eliminate the 13-3 year, let's also eliminate the 4-12 year since he was forced to play w/ another coach's players

11-5, 7-9, 9-7, 7-9, 11-5, 8-8

None of those seasons would be defined as sucked. As a matter of fact it's 3 avg seasons (can't get anymore avg than 7-9 to 9-7) and 2 above avg seasons. On avg Lovie wins 9 games a year, 9-7 = about 2/3 of the time.

Bill Belichick said he envisions deferring all the time. "I think it will be a regular occurrence and it will probably be what most teams [do]. The college coaches I've talked to have pretty much all told me that everyone pretty much always defers when they win the toss in college, it's like 100 percent of the time. My guess is that it will approach that in the NFL as well, in time. Whether it does right off the bat, I don't know. It would take some type of extreme conditions or an unusual experience to not do that if you win the toss. That's our approach going into it."

Boston Globe

For my opinion on the coin toss. If I'm at home, I'm deferring, everytime. If I'm on the road, I'm deferring, everytime. It's simple. At the start of the game, the home crowd is amped up, generating the most noise except for maybe the 4th quarter. After halftime, half the crowd is still in restroom lines or getting food. So as a coach, I want my offense, in every single scenario, on the first after halftime. And I want my defense on the field at the start of the game. Poke holes in my logic all you want, but that's my feeling. I hate getting the ball to start at Soldier Field, it means we all have to sit down and be quiet.

edit (do I have to keep going?)
Week 3:
GB won and deferred vs Seattle
Brows won and received
Niners won and deferred vs MN
MIA won and deferred vs NYJ
BAL won and deferred vs NEP